Can someone please help me reduce the similarity report for this paper? The paper is pasted below and the similarity report is attached in the 3 photos. I would like to keep the similarity percentage to under 10% if possible, but don't want to loose the point of the paper either.

Introduction: The company known as Koch Industries was founded by Fred Koch, who later passed it on to his sons and appointed Charles Koch as CEO. William (Bill) and David, two of three of Fred Koch's remaining brothers, would eventually join the company's management, while Frederick, the oldest brother, chose a different path in life. As a result, Koch avoided Koch Industries. The power struggle that Charles and Bill Koch, two of the Koch brothers, engaged in for more than three decades is the subject of this paper. As a result, the paper will talk about the various means by which Charles and Bill tried to get rid of each other.

The various sources of power utilized by Charles and Bill Koch within Koch Industries

The two brothers waged a prolonged struggle against one another. The brothers relied on reward power, legitimate authority, coercive influence, and expert supremacy as their sources. To begin, the Koch family has used coercive power for a very long time. For instance, the members of the family have financed presidential elections, a sign of their willingness to impose their will (Schulman, 2014a). Charles coerced the respective shareholders to reject his brother's plans to oust him when he learned of them. Charles was able to repurchase shares from a dissident shareholder through an old ally, Howard Marshall II, and retained the 51 percent required to lead the business.

The two brothers were entitled to lead Koch Industries in terms of legitimate power. Even though Fred left the business to Charles, it belonged to all of the Koch brothers, as Anderson (1998) points out. As a result, their respective causes were legitimate for both brothers. To put it another way, while Charles had every right to run the business as he saw fit, Bill had every right to question Charles' leadership abilities. Also, Charles went the right way when he decided to get rid of Bill, his troublesome brother. Charles attempted to acquire William and Fredrick, the eldest brother, from the company for $1.1 billion in 1983. Charles had attended schools that taught him management skills, so he had expert power. Charles turned his father's business into a multi-billion-dollar enterprise by utilizing these skills. Additionally, prior to joining Koch Industries, he had been employed by a management consulting firm. Charles possessed the necessary expertise, according to Anderson (1998), to lead Koch Industries to international success. Bill, on the other hand, is not subject to the same claim. Bill's management of the business division was always criticized by Charles for its poor performance. This observation suggests that Bill lacked expert authority. Charles was successful in gaining David's loyalty in terms of reward power. Consequently, David remained a crucial support for Charles throughout the family dispute.

Power Strategies Employed in the Battle for Control

The strategies employed by the two brothers varied. In an effort to maintain his position as CEO of the Koch family business, Charles made use of his political influence. For instance, David ran for vice president of the United States in 1980 through the Libertarian Party. David argued for the elimination of public schools and social security throughout his campaign. It is essential to point out that David's older brother, Charles, had meticulously planned his (David's) candidacy. Charles wanted to emphasize his networked perspective by pursuing political power in order to stifle Bill's opposition. David's candidacy was fiercely opposed by Bill, who argued that it would draw too much attention to the family. It was true that their father had opted for a quiet life. He particularly favored shielding the wealth of his family from public scrutiny. Despite this, Bill felt compelled to oppose Charles's every move, despite Bill's legitimate concerns about the media attention.

The majority of Bill's strategy consisted of opposing Charles' every move. For instance, he would meet secretly with shareholders, the majority of whom were unhappy with Charles' management of the business. The purpose of these meetings would be to devise a strategy for transforming Koch Industries into a publicly traded business. According to Gold (2014), Charles opposed this move because he was distrustful of government bureaucracy. Bill would start a series of lawsuits against his brothers later. He managed to win over Fredrick, the oldest brother, despite losing them all.

The victory of Charles Koch in this battleCharles Koch, like his father, was a ruthlessly ambitious man who believed in never giving up. He was always prepared to defend the business against Bill's heinous intentions because of this. Gold (2014) describes Charles as a leader who is decisive and steadfast. Charles put in a lot of effort to prevent the rebel brother from raising the 50 or more shares required for the purpose when Bill tried to oust him as CEO of the company. Additionally, as a result of Charles's decisiveness, he commanded a devoted following among employees and shareholders who believed he was looking out for the company's best interests. As a result, his success was largely due to his managerial abilities. On the other hand, Bill seemed like an angry brother whose only goal was to make sure that his older brother failed. Additionally, David played a crucial role in securing Charles' appointment as Koch Industries CEO. David decided to join Charles rather than Bill, his twin brother, despite his sympathy for him. Charles might have lost to the manipulative Bill without David's support and unwavering loyalty.

One of the things that can be learned from the story of Koch is that a business leader needs to be ready to take the risks that come with protecting their company. In order to safeguard the legacy of their father's business, Charles and David endured the stress and financial burden of numerous lawsuits. Ironically, a Koch brother was the target of this battle. This case also teaches future leaders in the industry that family businesses may not always be easy to run. Additionally, the Koch company's enormous legal fees serve as a reminder to leaders that legal actions can be costly. As a result, it would be prudent to avoid going to court and instead look for other means of resolving disagreements. According to Vogel (2014), Charles recalled that his father had advised that difficult disagreements should be the focus of litigation.

Another point to remember is how important it is to be friendly and approachable with coworkers at the same time. If Charles and Bill hadn't been in a good relationship, maybe the whole thing wouldn't have happened. As a result, Koch Industries would not have had to deal with the costly lawsuits, allowing for even greater prosperity. The final takeaway is that professional competence is critical. According to Schulman (2014 b), Charles' zealous leadership management skills enabled him to transform a family fortune into a multi-billion-dollar business. As a result, the organization regarded him highly. As a result, his position as the legitimate Koch brothers leader was reaffirmed despite his leadership tact.

The Manager's Main Sources of Power I once worked at a small company branch where the manager used power from a variety of sources. These sources were trustworthy, knowledgeable, and rewarded power. In rare instances, the manager would exhibit coercive power on occasion. The most successful business in the small town was the one that made and sold chocolate candy. Eric Benet, the manager, was blamed for the company's success. Due to his lack of managerial experience, the previous manager had nearly closed the branch. The company had suffered its worst losses and had the highest rate of employee turnover during the manager's tenure. As a result, Eric, a highly qualified and dedicated manager, was hired by management. The profit margin gradually increased and the branch's returns skyrocketed under Eric's direction. Eric was named manager of the year when the branch achieved its highest performance by the end of the second year after his arrival. Eric's use of authority is demonstrated in this scenario.

When Eric disagreed with other senior employees regarding business decisions, he also exercised legitimate authority. He would point to his qualifications and track record of success while taking care not to come across as a bully. Since Eric was referring to a position that he legitimately held at the branch, this strategy can be described as the use of legitimate power. The same strategy can also be referred to as coercive power. It was true that Eric had a track record of being referred to as a dictator, particularly in the organization where he had previously worked prior to joining our company. Finally, Eric made use of his power to reward employees for their loyalty to him.

This Manager's Power Tactics Eric was a charismatic individual who earned the respect of his employees. He would use his charisma to get employees to support him as a manager. Eric would try to persuade those who disagreed with him to adopt his viewpoint. Also, Eric kept close relationships with the company's CEO, which always got him favors when they came up. The plan would also help him establish himself as a manager who cares about the company's best interests. In a similar vein, according to Anderson (1998), the Koch family concentrated its power by providing financial support to politicians it thought would best serve the organization's interests.

The Manager's Level of Power Use and Abuse I think Eric used his power well, especially his expert power. Even though he sometimes used this expertise to suppress opposition, his proposals would ultimately be successful. Modern business practices, on the other hand, require managers to be adaptable and to consider the suggestions of their employees. Eric could have been more open to different points of view in this situation. He would not have been branded a dictator in this manner. In a similar vein, Eric should have opted for inclusive leadership where all employees could consult rather than relying on coercive power. The branch could have achieved even greater success if that had been the case. Employee involvement, according to Yang and Konrad (2011), motivates workers and contributes to the success of an organization. Lastly, I believe Eric used his legitimate power effectively. He never unfairly disciplined or fired employees.

References

Gold, M. (2014).An amazing map or the Koch brothers massive political network. Web.

Schulman, D. (2014a).Koch vs. Koch: The brutal battle that tore apart America's most powerful family.Web.

Schulman, D. (2014b).Sons of Wichita: How the Koch brothers became America's most powerful and private dynasty. New York, NY: Grand Central Publishing.

Vogel, D. (2014).Koch world.Web.

Anderson, R. (1998).Fundamentals of educational research.London, England: Psychology Press.

Yang, Y., & Konrad, A. M. (2011). Diversity and organizational innovation: The role of employee involvement.Journal of Organizational Behavior,32(8), 1062-1083

turnitin Timothy Shepard Module 1 Case - Tim Shepard.docx (? Introduction: The company known as Koch Industries was founded by Fred Koch, who later passed it on to his sons and appointed Charles Koch as CEO. William (Bill) and David, the remaining 25 brothers, would eventually join the company's management, while Frederick, the oldest brother, chose a different path in life. As a result, Koch avoided Koch Industries. The power struggle that Charles and Bill Koch, two of the Koch brothers, engaged in for more than three decades is the subject of this paper. As a result, the paper will talk about the various means by which Charles and Bill tried to get rid of each other. The various sources of power utilized by Charles and Bill Koch within Koch ETS Industries The two brothers waged a prolonged struggle against one another. The brothers relied on reward power, legitimate authority, coercive influence, and expert supremacy as their sources. To begin, the Koch family has used coercive power for a very long time. For instance, the members of the family have financed presidential elections, a sign of their willingness to impose meir will (Schulman, 2014a). Charles coerced the respective shareholders to reject his brother's plans to oust him when he learned of them. Charles was able to repurchase shares from a dissident shareholder through an old ally, Howard Marshall II, and retained the 51 percent required to lead the business. The two brothers were entitled to lead Koch Industries in terms of legitimate power. Even though Fred left the business to Charles, it belonged to all of the Koch brothers, as Anderson (1998) points out. As a result, their respective causes were legitimate for both brothers. To put it another way, while Charles had every right to run the business as he saw fit, Bill had every right to question Charles' leadership abilities. Also, Charles went the right way when he decided to get rid of Bill, his troublesome brother. Charles attempted to acquire William and Fredrick, the eldest brother, from the company for $1.1 billion in 1983. Charles had attended schools that taught him management skills, so he had expert power. Charles turned his father's business into a multi-billion-dollar enterprise by utilizing these skills. Additionally, prior to joining Koch Industries, he had been employed by a management consulting firm. Charles possessed the necessary expertise, according to Anderson (1998), to lead Koch Industries to international success. Bill, on the other hand, is not subject to the same claim. Bill's management of the business division was always criticized by Charles for its poor performance. This observation suggests that Bill lacked expert authority. Charles was successful in gaining David's loyalty in terms of reward power. Consequently, David remained a crucial support for Charles throughout the family dispute. Power Strategies Employed in the Battle for Control The strategies employed by the two brothers varied. In an effort to maintain his position as GEO of the Koch family business, Charles made use of his political influence. For instance, David ran for vice president of the United States in 1980 through the Libertarian Party. David argued for the elimination of public schools and social security throughout his campaign. It is essential to point out that David's older brother, Charles, had meticulously planned his (David's) candidacy. Charles wanted to emphasize his networked perspective by pursuing political power inmurder to stifle Bill's opposition. David's candidacy was fiercely opposed by Bill, who argued that it would draw too much attention to the family. It was true that their father had opted for a quiet life. He particularly favored shielding the wealth of his Page: 2 of 5 Word Count: 1802 Text-Only Report High Resolution On O 2 Qa turnltln Timothy Shepard Modulel CaseTim Sheparddocx O n y family from public scrutiny. Despite this, Bill felt compelled to oppose Charles's every move, despite Bill's legitimate concerns about the media attention. The majority of Bill's strategy consisted of opposing Charles' every move. For instance, he would meet secretly with shareholders, the majority of whom were unhappy with Charles' management of the business. The purpose of these meetings would be to devise a strategy for transforming Koch Industries into a publicly traded businessl According to Gold (2014), Charles opposed this move because he was distrustful of government bureaucracy. Bill would start a series of lawsuits against his brothers later. He managed to win over Fredrick, the oldest brother, despite losing them all. The victory of Charles Koch in this battle Charles Koch, rilke his father, was a ruthlessly ambitious man who believed in never giving up. He was always prepared to defend the (D business against Bill's heinous intentions because of this. Gold (2014) describes Charles as a leader who is ecisive and steadfast. Charles put in a lot of effort prevent the rebel brother from raising the 50 or more shares required f the purpose hen Bill tried to oust him as CEO of the company Additionally, as a result f Charles's decisiveness, he commanded a devoted follo ing among employees and shareholders who believed he was looking out for the company's best interests. As a result, his success was largely duet his managerial abilities. On the other hand, Bill seemed like an angry brother whose only goal was to make sure that his older brother failed. Additionally, David played a crucial role in securing Charles' appointment as Koch Industries CEO. David decided to join Charles rather than Bill, his twin brother, despite his sympathy for him. Charles might have lost to the manipulative Bill without David's support and unwavering loyalty. One of the things that can be learned from the story of Koch is that a siness leader needs to be ready to take the risks that co with protecting their company. In order to safeguard the legacy of their fathejs business, harles and David endured the stress and financial burden o numerous la suits. Ironically, a Koch brother was the target of this battle. This case also teaches future leaders in the industry that family busines 3 may not always be easy to run. Additionally, the Koch company's enormous legal fees we as a reminder to leaders that legal actions can be costly. As a result, it would be prudent to avoid going to court and instead look for other means of resolving di agreements. According to Vogel (2014), Charles recalled that his father had advised that difficult disagreements should be the focus of litigation. Another point to remember is how important it is to be friendly and approachable with coworkers at the same time. If Charles and Bill hadn't been in a good relationship, maybe the whole thing wouldn't have happened. As a result, Koch Industries would not have had to deal with the costly lawsuits, allowing for even greater prosperity. The final takeaway is that professional competence is critical. According to Schulman (2014 b), Charles' zealous leadership management skills enabled him to transform a family fortune into a multi-billion- dollar business. As a result, the organization regarded him highly. As a result, his position as the legitimate Koch brothers leader was reaffirmed despite his leadership tact. Ehe Manager's Main Sources of Power I once worked a Esmall company branch where the manager used power from a variety of sources. These 5 urces were trustworthy, Page-sets Word Countisoz Wtion- X Q 0 Q turnitin Timothy Shepard Module 1 Case - Tim Shepard.docx ? 25 knowledgeable, and rewarded power. In rare instances, the manager would exhibit coercive power on occasion. The most successful business in the small town was the one that made and sold chocgate candy. Eric Benet, the manager, was blamed for the company's success. Due to his lack of managerial experience, the previous manager had nearly closed the branch. The company had suffered its worst losses and had the highest rate of employee turnover during the manager's tenure. As a result, Eric, a highly qualified and dedicated manager, was hired by management. The profit margin gradually increased and ETS the branch's returns skyrocketed under Eric's direction. Eric was named manager of the year when the branch achieved its highest performance by the end of the second year after his arrival. Eric's use of authority is demonstrated in this scenario. i When Eric disagreed with other senior employees regarding business decisions, he also exercised legitimate authority. He would point to his qualifications and track record of success while taking care not to come across as a bully. Since Eric was referring to a position that he legitimately held at the branch, this strategy gan be described as the use of legitimate power. The same strategy can also be referred to as coercive power. It was true that Eric had a track record of being referred to as a dictator, particularly in the organization where he had previously worked prior to joining our company. Finally, Eric made use of his power to reward employees for their loyalty to him. This Manager's Power Tactics Eric was a charismatic individual who earned the respect of his employees. He would use his charisma to get employees to support him as a manager. Eric would try to persuade those who disagreed with him to adopt his viewpoint. Also, Eric kept close relationships with the company's CEO, which always got him favors when they came up. The plan would also help him establish himself as a manager who cares about the company's best interests. In a similar vein, according to Anderson (1998), the Koch family concentrated its power by providing financial support to politicians it thought would best serve the organization's interests. The Manager's Level of Power Use and Abuse I think Eric used his power well, especially his expert power. Even though he sometimes used this expertise to suppress opposition, his proposals would ultimately be successful. Modern business practices, on the other hand, require managers to be adaptable and to consider the suggestions of their employees. Eric could have been more open to different points of view in this situation. He would not have been branded a dictator in this manner. In a similar vein, Eric should have opted for inclusive leadership where all employees could consult rather than relying on 1 coercive power. The branch could have achieved even greater success if that had been the case. Employee involvement, according to Yang and Konrad (2011), motivates workers and contributes to the success of an organization. Lastly, | believe Eric used his legitimate power effectively. He never unfairly disciplined or fired employees. Page: 4 of 5 Word Count: 1802 Text-Only Report High Resolution On . 21